Are Israel and the Church the Same Church?

[Guest]

Christianity is not a different "olive tree" from that of Judaism, but non-Jews were grafted into the same one, supported by the same "root".

Are we pressing Paul's figure too far?

If the tree is the same, why would those who were part of the Judaism tree, who entered by the flesh, be required to be born of the spirit to be in the same tree? Were they put out of the "olive tree" they were once part of and required to enter into the same tree once again by another way if the tree was the same?

If "the Church" is the same tree as Judaism, and none have ever been saved who are not in "the Church", then what of all the gentiles both before and after the Law of Moses came for the Jews, were there none saved other than Jews?

I have long believed that gentiles could be saved apart from the Law, just the same as they could before the Law came, as Noah, Abraham, et al were. The Law was for the Jews alone, addressed to those "brought out of Egypt". (this did not preclude one from becoming a Jew.) Is there any place in scripture where we are informed that all the other peoples of the earth, without exception, though they believed in the true God, were unacceptable to God at the time the Law was given?

If people could be acceptable to God, apart from the Law, prior to the coming of Messiah, then there were two Churches in existence or Israel alone did not comprise "the Church".

[Guest]

hi homer-

i am no arborist, but doesnt it say that non-believing jews were "broken off" their tree and the believing gentiles were grafted in? paul warns the gentiles who were grafted in that they may too be broken off if they arent careful; the jews can be grafted back in if they believe rightly. its all the same tree, which is subject to pruning and grafting. the challenge is to remain part of the tree.

TK

[Guest]

Maybe the question should be asked, are there any natural branches today. I would say no. Aren't we all grafted in, whether Jew or Gentile since the cross? The natural, being those under the Law of Moses, were certainly in an advantage prior to the cross, but since grace now abounds and faith in Christ must be professed, aren't we all in the same situation starting out?

[Guest]

good point, allyn, except that perhaps the faithful jewish remnant (who accepted christ, like anna and simeon) was never really broken off but rather smoothly transitioned. there was no need to break them off because they always believed appropriately.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, gentlemen,

TK wrote: i am no arborist

Me either, but here's a little auxiliary reading from the California Olive Oil News (linked here):

Comments from the Internet:

Theresa Asks: I am currently studying Theology and the grafting of a "wild" olive into a cultivated olive tree is discussed by Paul in the book of Romans. When you have a cultivated olive tree and graft into it a wild olive branch....
A. Will the fruit on the wild olive branch be that of the cultivated olive?
B. When looking at the overall tree, several years after the successful grafting, could you distinguish the wild olive branch(s) from the cultivated olive branches (with the exception of the scar left from the grafting)?

OOS responds: It sounds like the bible has it backwards. Usually cultivated plants are grafted onto the hardy native or wild rootstock to take advantage of its ability to withstand the local soil, water conditions and pests. The part grafted will have its own fruit. Cultivated olives are varieties which humans have selected because the fruit is larger, contains more oil, is more productive or is more resistant to weather or pests.

Wild olives generally have small fruit with large stones and less oil. Grafting a wild plant onto a domesticated trunk would give you the inferior fruit of the wild graft.

Although there are hundreds of different olive varieties, many have nearly identical leaves and fruit. You may be able to detect the difference between a graft and its host if the leaves, habit and fruit of the two are very different and you let some of the host leaves and fruit develop. Generally this is not allowed or the rootstock will put most of its energy into its own branches to the detriment of the graft.

I wonder if Paul "has it backwards," or if he knows quite well (at least some of) the implications of his illustration?

(I'll put two bits on Paul knowing something about olive husbandry.)

Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

good point, allyn, except that perhaps the faithful jewish remnant (who accepted christ, like anna and simeon) was never really broken off but rather smoothly transitioned. there was no need to break them off because they always believed appropriately.

TK

Exactly, TK.

My point is that after the death of that generation since the birth of Christ, no one is of a natural state except in Christ. Maybe we could look at it this way; the olive tree continually sprouted new branches representing generation upon generation of Jewish individuals. They remained a part of the tree as long as they remained the remnant. Some may have dropped off right away and others remained. But since the cross no one can claim being natural since there is neither Greek nor Jew in the sight of God. All must confess the name of Christ for salvation to occur in that life. This requirement did not exist under the Law, only obeidience by faith counted. Now that Grace is freely given only acceptance is required for salvation.

[Guest]

i agree with you allyn.

very interesting link regarding olive tree grafting. i havent yet figured the full implication, but i agree that paul likely new something about the topic.

TK

[Guest]

I think I agree with Allyn as well. The olive tree's natural branches I believe were first century Jews who accepted the Jewish Messiah. This would confirm that they were natural branches indeed. I don't know how anyone today could be a natural branch and at the same time reject the Messiah.

[Guest]

Sean,

Are you saying that the "natural branches" were the Jews who first believed the Gospel and not including the faithful Jews under the Law of Moses? This would then be in agreement with Paul's figure of the Church being a building with Jesus the foundation cornerstone. This particular building did not exist prior to the foundation.

[Guest]

Israel Is Not Cast Away

1 I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a[1][Lit of the seed of Abraham ] descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

I think the natural branches are the people who he foreknew,
but only a remnant will be saved---that believe the Gospel.

1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
3 For I could wish[1][Lit pray ] that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises,
5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the[2][I.e. the Messiah] Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever[3][Lit unto the ages ]. Amen.

Israel is dispersed among the nations, and thats where the gospel has gone, so the remnant will be saved--the early church being the first fruits of it as they were all Jews/Israelites.

so I think Homer has a point